Agenda item

Yvonne Fox, Assistant Director of Housing:

a.    provided Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee with a quarter one report on Performance Indicators for the 2021/22 financial year (April 2021- June 2021), as detailed at Appendix A

b.    advised that of the 21 measures, 8 were on or exceeding targets for the year (year-end), 10 had not met the targets set and 3 indicators were currently not available at the time of this report

c.    highlighted that of the 10 measures that did not meet the target, 2 of these were within 5% tolerance of their respective targets (Amber rating), and one of these represented a year-end target (Decent Homes)

d.    reported that over the last eleven years the Council had been working with the Lincoln Tenants Panel to improve external scrutiny and to meet the standards implemented by the Tenant Services Authority

e.    reported that from April 2010 all social landlords were required to have local offers in place alongside the national standards as set out in the new Regulatory Framework for Social Housing, amended with effect from April 2012, although the principles remained the same

f.     referred to Appendix A which attempted to simplify the overall analysis by listing performance on a service functional basis (rents, repairs, etc) and then showing the source of the indicator (reason)

g.    added that for comparison purposes each indicator showed last year’s performance against the target for the current year (where applicable) and progress made in the current year

h.    referred to paragraph 4.3 of the report and highlighted areas of good performance:

·         Arrears as a % of rent debit

·         Completed repairs right on first visit (priority and urgent)

9. further highlighted a brief explanation of reasons where we had not achieved our targets as detailed at paragraph 4.4 of the report:

10. highlighted that although there had been many challenges for the directorate struggling with raw materials and supply chains, all in all performance was holding its own under difficult circumstances

11. invited committees’ questions and comment.

Members discussed the content of the report in further detail. The following key questions and comments emerged:

·         Question: What was the projected out-turn for voids in the next quarter?

·         Response: This could not be predicted in the circumstances due to the void’s contractor having gone into administration which was unprecedented. So many people were in temporary accommodation who could not be pre allocated into properties as we didn’t know how long this would take. We were working to minimise the impact on our customers employing local contractors to help HRS with void work and by the end of September we would hopefully have a better idea of where we stood.

·         Question: How did the increase in rent arrears compare against other Councils?

·         Response: The Council did conduct benchmarking exercises with similar authorities, and performance fared well against these. Collection rates were down to 95% in some areas of the country, compared to this we were doing well at 99%.

·         Question: Was the increase in calls regarding repairs down to an ease in COVID restrictions?

·         Response: The reason why the volume of calls had gone up was not quite certain. Further investigations would be made prior to reporting back to the next meeting of Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee.

·         Question: The percentage of complaints replied to in line with Corporate policy was recorded as down. What was this attributed to?

·         Response: The Corporate Complaints Policy was complex in nature. Various information was required including site visits, it was likely to be a volume issue. It could simply be it was half a day out of target not weeks. With staff not at their desks this could possibly cause a couple of days slippage. We kept up liaison with tenant’s meantime regarding any complaints.

·         Question: The percentage of complaints replied to within target time was set at a top target of 70.37% for quarter 1. This was not in line with Corporate policy at 98.18%? What was the reason for the difference?

·         Response Councillor Nannestad, Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing: It may be that the Housing directorate held a different target to that of Corporate Policy which covered the whole authority. Clarification would be sought on the reason for the differing figures to be reported back to Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee.

·         Comment: People telephoning in were not getting the required action. This was disappointing, whether or not staff were working from home. The target for ‘complaints replied to within target time’ had been raised to 95% although actual performance was recorded at 70.8% in the previous year.

·         Response: The member of staff responsible for dealing with complaints had unfortunately been off with long term sickness. We now had someone in place to monitor complaints which would improve performance. Telephone calls were often complex requiring further information to be sourced and supplied to customers.

·         Question: If calls were recorded, was it not possible to pursue why action wasn’t taken?

·         Response by Portfolio Holder for Quality Housing: A temporary appointment had now been made to fill the gap.

·         Comment: Tenants were not always sure which housing officer they were speaking to over the telephone if someone unfamiliar picked up the call.

·         Response: The Housing officer patches were up to date on the Council’s website. If there happened to be a vacancy, then the Area Housing Manager would pick up the call.

·         Question: Was it possible to include a commentary alongside the performance indicators in quarter two giving reasons for their status?

·         Response: Yes, this was possible although this volume of information would need to be displayed in smaller type to fit the page.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The current performance outcomes during the financial year 2021/22 be noted

2.    Additional information on reasons for performance indicator status be incorporated into the analysis of performance data in future from quarter 2 report onwards.

3.    Further investigations to be made prior to reporting back to the next meeting of Housing Scrutiny Sub Committee on reasons for the increase in calls and response times/percentage of complaints replied to within target time not in line with Corporate policy

4.    A commitment to continued reporting on a quarterly basis and to determine a programme to have more interim in-depth reviews of service specific performance be noted.